BharatTax.net
SearchITATHigh CourtsSupreme CourtPhrasesAI ResearchHistory

Filters

BharatTax.net

Free search engine for ITAT (Income Tax Appellate Tribunal) judgments across all 28 benches in India.

Quick Links

  • Search Judgments
  • Browse by Bench
  • Recent Judgments

About

BharatTax provides free access to Income Tax Appellate Tribunal orders for legal research and reference.

© 2026 BharatTax.net. All rights reserved.

3 results for “charitable trust”+ Section 193clear

Sorted by relevance

Karnataka445Delhi176Mumbai99Bangalore43Chandigarh25Ahmedabad23Chennai23Jaipur19Cuttack19Kolkata17Calcutta16Lucknow15Pune15Amritsar11Indore9Hyderabad6Cochin4Telangana3SC3Raipur3Rajkot2Rajasthan2Surat2Visakhapatnam1Dehradun1Andhra Pradesh1Nagpur1Ranchi1T.S. THAKUR ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN1

Key Topics

Section 104Exemption2

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) vs. AHMEDABAD URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

C.A. No.-021762-021762 - 2017Supreme Court19 Oct 2022

Bench: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

charitable character of the assessee is apparent and not in dispute since it has been accepted by the revenue up to AY 2008-09. Also, the final factual findings recorded by lower authorities conclusively demonstrate that the assessee is engaged in ‘advancement of general public utility’, and qualifies as a ‘charitable purpose’ as it does not carry any trade commerce

K.R. PATEL(DEAD) THROUGH LRS. vs. COMMNR. OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-005649-005649 - 1990Supreme Court27 Aug 1999
For Respondent: COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Section 161Section 256(1)

charitable nature. This constituted 1/3 of the property of the testator after funeral expenses, expenses for obtaining probate and paying debts of the testator, if any. One of the questions raised was whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case 1/3 of the property mentioned in the will could be said to be held under trust

M/S QUEEN'S EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY vs. COMMR.OF INCOME TAX

C.A. No.-005167-005167 - 2008Supreme Court16 Mar 2015

Bench: The Uttarakhand High Court, Nainital, May Be Gleaned From The Facts Of One Of Them, Namely, The Queen’S Educational Society Case. The Appellant Filed Its Return For Assessment Years 2000-2001 & 2001-2002 Showing A Net Surplus Of Rs.6,58,862/- & Rs.7,82,632/- Respectively. Since The Appellant Was Established With The Sole 2

Section 10Section 10(22)Section 260A

trust, as pointed out by one of us (Pathak,J.) in Dharmadeepti v. CIT [(1978) 3 SCC 499 : 1978 SCC (Tax) 193] must be ‘“essentially charitable in nature” and it must not be a cover for carrying on an activity which has profit making as its predominant object. This interpretation of the exclusionary clause in Section